D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Mort]

Sorry, but that player sounds like they have anger issues.

Sure, their reaction was, well, terrible. BUT:

doesn't change the fact that the DM needs to establish some trust before even hinting at a rock falls you die scenario.

 

[Aldarc]

 

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps 6 months ago when you killed Jareth as punishment for expertly breaking into the mayors house while everyone was asleep and punching his dagger up through the base of the mayors skull in what was clearly an expert kill, you should have inquired further. The clues were there. If you didn't see or pursue them and then 6 months later it comes back to bite you, that's not on the DM or a DM gotcha.

Sure it is. The DM is the one who decides how it comes back to bite them. The DM is the one who decided how difficult it was to learn any more at the time. The DM is the one who communicates all this to the players.

If they know nothing, then why go about it in a way that capitalizes on that? Why not work up any number of other scenarios that would work for the situation that still function as a game?

It seems that all of those rumors talking about the ancient red north of the town of Wefryeverysooften and the dragon encircling the mountain on the map seem to be true. Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there at 5th level and brought this eminently avoidable circumstance upon yourselves.

I don't think that signaling danger in a more immediate way would be a strange way to proceed here. I'd say not doing so is a decision by the DM.

So I'd wonder why does a DM decide to handle it this way? What's gained by handling it this way?

Would you rather fight 20 skeletons or 40? There's nothing about a necromancer who is building up that is a gotcha or unfair. Hitting her and keeping her forces down is a sound tactic. Expecting her to just sit there and not add more after a week of you guys sitting around is silly.

I'd say you have to honor what's established in play. I'd go one step further and say, regardless of how you're playing... you could be playing as trad as anyone has ever tradded... you should honor what's happened in play ABOVE what's happened outside of play.

If the PCs have spent time trying to reduce the enemy's numbers, and they succeed, then honor that. If there's some way for the necromancer to replenish those forces, then let the players know that. Communicate that he has access to the great necropolis under the city and no shortage of corpses or whatever. If this is the case, then it's better for it to be established before hand, so it doesn't seem like a DM simply narrating events that undo the PCs success.

Of course you can come up with examples of a bad DM abusing authority, but assuming the DM is not bad(And DMs very rarely are), it will go more like I describe above than how you describe it in the quotes.

I don't know if DMs are rarely bad... I don't think we really have enough data to say, and the results would be very subjective anyway. But I don't think a DM needs to be bad to make a poor call. It's gonna happen to everyone at some point... you make a bad call. Better to own it and adjust rather than double down.

The DM is responsible for so much of the game and of the players' understanding of the fiction, that all of the examples that were offered seem more about punishing players than trying to foster verisimilitude or reasonable consequences.

In most cases, there are a number of ways to go... multiple interpretations that can be used in the fiction. So when a DM uses the most aggressive and least forgiving version, that's a choice they've made... and if it was me, I'd want to have a more solid reason than "well, that's what would happen" because really it's just "that's what I decided would happen".

 

[Lanefan]

The explicit example given previously was that there was no such evidence. Had the players inquired, yes, they would have been (potentially) able to find out--but there were zero such forward-facing clues given. Hence why I used it as an example.

Very-low level party are walking cross-country from one town to another. DM narrates on day two that they notice a tower on a distant hill to their left. Party, having previously heard only that thos tower is a dangerous place, decide on a whim to change course and check it out. On arrival they do no pre-scouting, but instead just walk up to the front door and try to sneak in.

The owner of the tower is a full lich (intended as a major NPC mentor/foe/etc. down the road), and it is her home. She has numerous very powerful guards, including several demons, at the front door, whose job is to forcibly repel intruders.

So how do you think that would play out at the table? Is the DM within rights to TPK them to obilvion?



This one really did happen, a long time ago (sadly, I was neither DM nor player in that game); and how it played out is that of a party of six, three fled and survived while the others died fast (the corpse of one was thrown down the hill at those fleeing and barely missed them).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Very-low level party are walking cross-country from one town to another. DM narrates on day two that they notice a tower on a distant hill to their left. Party, having previously heard only that thos tower is a dangerous place, decide on a whim to change course and check it out. On arrival they do no pre-scouting, but instead just walk up to the front door and try to sneak in.

The owner of the tower is a full lich (intended as a major NPC mentor/foe/etc. down the road), and it is her home. She has numerous very powerful guards, including several demons, at the front door, whose job is to forcibly repel intruders.

So how do you think that would play out at the table? Is the DM within rights to TPK them to obilvion?



This one really did happen, a long time ago (sadly, I was neither DM nor player in that game); and how it played out is that of a party of six, three fled and survived while the others died fast (the corpse of one was thrown down the hill at those fleeing and barely missed them).

Insufficient data for meaningful answer.

Calling something just generically "dangerous" without anything more specific is one of the worst flags you can put out, because it can mean anything. Most places adventurers go are dangerous, and usually they'll hear about it in advance. Some are, "no, players, you REALLY SHOULD be very scared." Some are, "this would be scary to lesser folk, but you are heroes brave and true!" And some are, "this is a place that could be a threat, and an opportunity."

The players generally should scout around, but from the sound of it this was really early in the game. Hard to get a feel for what is warranted investigation when you've done all of one adventure (or the like.)

So, IMO, while serious consequences are warranted, I don't think the players would be out of line to say, "wait WHAT?" in response to a TPK either. But there are several things that could tweak that. Perhaps the DM said, right at the start, "There may be places you encounter that are much too powerful for you to face. It is on you to do research and reconnaissance, and make judgment calls about what risks you're willing to take, and there is always a chance you might be wrong...dead wrong." Then yeah, this is on the players. Conversely, if the DM never said anything of the sort (or worse, talked up fhr heroic adventure stuff), then I would be quite comfortable laying the blame almost entirely at their feet, not the players'.

 

[Lanefan]

Insufficient data for meaningful answer.

Calling something just generically "dangerous" without anything more specific is one of the worst flags you can put out, because it can mean anything. Most places adventurers go are dangerous, and usually they'll hear about it in advance. Some are, "no, players, you REALLY SHOULD be very scared." Some are, "this would be scary to lesser folk, but you are heroes brave and true!" And some are, "this is a place that could be a threat, and an opportunity."

Meaning they should probably ask some more in-character questions rather than just wander over and check it out. "Dangerous" is more than enough forewarning IMO, and it's on the players/PCs to then determine what "dangerous" means in that context.

The players generally should scout around, but from the sound of it this was really early in the game. Hard to get a feel for what is warranted investigation when you've done all of one adventure (or the like.)

So, IMO, while serious consequences are warranted, I don't think the players would be out of line to say, "wait WHAT?" in response to a TPK either. But there are several things that could tweak that. Perhaps the DM said, right at the start, "There may be places you encounter that are much too powerful for you to face. It is on you to do research and reconnaissance, and make judgment calls about what risks you're willing to take, and there is always a chance you might be wrong...dead wrong." Then yeah, this is on the players. Conversely, if the DM never said anything of the sort (or worse, talked up fhr heroic adventure stuff), then I would be quite comfortable laying the blame almost entirely at their feet, not the players'.

I wasn't around for the start of that game (I joined a bit after all this happened) but I think it was already well established that the game world was a dangerous place and would kill you dead if it got the chance. But even if not, or if the DM had played up the heroic adventure piece, I'd say it's still on the players/PCs to carry out at least a modicum of due diligence before wading in.

And note that those who chose to (or were able to) flee did survive....which IMO is wise on the part of the tower guards: let a few survivors run off to tell their stories and further enhance the dangerous reputation this place has.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Meaning they should probably ask some more in-character questions rather than just wander over and check it out. "Dangerous" is more than enough forewarning IMO, and it's on the players/PCs to then determine what "dangerous" means in that context.

When are PCs not heading into danger? Expecting them to somehow determine the context without more input seems odd.

You even described the tower as a place that was designed for later play... so why not cue them in? If that's the intention, then let the intention be known.

And don't say verisimilitude, please. There are any number of ways to cue the danger in a way that makes sense within the fiction. Find a way that works as both fiction and game. Don't sacrifice one on the altar of the other.

 

[Lanefan]

When are PCs not heading into danger? Expecting them to somehow determine the context without more input seems odd.

You even described the tower as a place that was designed for later play... so why not cue them in? If that's the intention, then let the intention be known.

Not necessarily later play - in a manner of speaking that campaign is still going today; that tower and its lich owner are still there, and I think the DM would actually prefer we leave it alone. (though some of our characters might have other ideas on that...)

And don't say verisimilitude, please. There are any number of ways to cue the danger in a way that makes sense within the fiction. Find a way that works as both fiction and game. Don't sacrifice one on the altar of the other.

When fiction and game conflict, I'd rather let the fiction win. Sometimes "dangerous" is all the info you have to go on until you either a) ask questions of the right people or b) go and check it out i.e. learn by trial and error.

 

[clearstream]

I've been mulling further what underlies GM power. So far it's been said that there are some preexisting jobs to be done, such as managing adversaries, that may be assigned to one participant. Said assignment establishes a GM as such.

Over time a tradition or institution forms, so that to pin the GM badge on a person carries with it the powers it's understood to have (and which can of course be challenged.) Naming GMs as such in game texts and conceits such as "DMs Guild" supplying endorsements.

It may be in view of this institution that whomever has the badge develops in turn expectations about how they will be treated. "I'm GM, you have to trust me" in place of earned trust, perhaps proving convenient in common situations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not necessarily later play - in a manner of speaking that campaign is still going today; that tower and its lich owner are still there, and I think the DM would actually prefer we leave it alone. (though some of our characters might have other ideas on that...)

Isn't there usually some kind of way to handle this? Like in a dungeon delve, generally speaking things will get tougher the deeper you delve. Or in a hexcrawl or wilderness exploration, the further you go from civilization, the greater the danger. Obviously, this is not always true... but when not, shouldn't the GM then be trying to cue the danger in some other way?

Letting a very low-level party walk up to a lich's tower that's guarded by demons and then blaming them for not being more resourceful seems pretty bad to me. What resources did they have at that level? And which of those would have somehow helped against a lich and demons?

Why not give them a warning of some sort so that they're actually making a decision? Maybe three demons manifest, and the two laugh as the weakest chases off the mortals.

When fiction and game conflict, I'd rather let the fiction win. Sometimes "dangerous" is all the info you have to go on until you either a) ask questions of the right people or b) go and check it out i.e. learn by trial and error.

Why?

There's no right or wrong answer, I don't think, because it's a matter of preference. But why do you feel that way? I can explain my feeling about it... that the real players are more important than the pretend events of play.

Also, can't some reasonable result be found that satisfies both? I came up with just one above, in a matter of a minute or so.